Monday, 23 January 2012

A lot of what happens in today's world just calls for some intervention from Athena (or whatever other entity embodies reason and wisdom in mythologies). Yesterday I was watching Match of the Day on the BBC and during the highlights of a game I saw one of the players stomp on another's face. In another incident, another player elbowed one of his opponents in the head. Now I'm not one to take sports very seriously, but these two guys didn't even get a card. And they're not going to get any other penalty from the Football Association even after everyone can see this stuff on TV replays. Meanwhile a couple weeks ago the FA handed Luis Suarez an unprecedented eight match ban and £40,000 fine for allegedly calling another player a bad racist name during a game.
Am I the only one who is thinking of the old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"? I thought all children knew this stuff. But, apparently, adults don't. Nowadays it is considered a great offense to call someone a name, but kicking, beating, and other types of violence are just dandy. The football example is a silly one, of course, but it illustrates the situation as it exists in the wider society. A stupid prejudice like racism is just that - stupid. But we seem to care more about eradicating it than preserving people's rights in their person and property. A racist can't really hurt anyone. He (or she) just talks nonsense. The reason people pay more attention to the words is because they have to have something to distract them from the obvious 'sticks and stones' which beat us down in our everyday lives.
People choose not to see the fact that all services which are provided for them by the state are not 'public' services, but rather 'coercive services'. The naked force behind all government programs is so plain and apparent that we really need a lot of distractions and make a great effort not to see this. What I am worried about though, is the way this double standard of morals is starting to slip into the private realm. Already most people I talk to are nihilists of one kind or another. The football example is quite a good guide in this regard - why are a couple nasty shouts being penalized much harsher than physical violence which could do serious harm to the victim?
Maybe soon in kindergartens across the West we'll be hearing a new version of the rhyme? "Sticks and stones strengthen our bones, but words can really kill us" perhaps?

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

As a lot of people know, I support the death penalty for murder in the current justice system. This does not say much, of course, because I do not support the current justice system as a whole, so there is little reason for me to engage in any debates regarding it. The main reason I don't support the current system could freak out most NeoLiberal minded people: OUR GOVERNMENT TODAY IMPOSES THE DEATH PENALTY FOR ANYTHING, INCLUDING SELF-DEFENSE. So let's take an example.

I am a pacifist living on a nice suburban estate in England. I work hard, and so does my wife. We have to work hard, because we are trying to save enough money for our child to go to the school of our choice so that he can actually get educated, not indoctrinated. In order to pay for the school, we can't afford to forfeit 60% of our income in protection money, so we simply stop paying the local gang. We have not aggressed against anyone in doing so. In fact, we never used force to get anything in our lives - as pacifists we only use force in self-defense. We are therefore able to pay for the school and are happy living as we are. Unfortunately soon letters start flooding in from the protection racket which has a monopoly of "protection" in the neighbourhood. These letters are followed up by "court" documents and phone calls. One day, I am making dinner in the kitchen, while my wife answers the doorbell. I hear screams. I run through the hallway and see two men in strange blue costumes grappling with my wife. It seems obvious that they are kidnappers. Without hesitation I grab a knife and lunge at the attackers. But seeing the knife they immediately pull guns out of the holsters on their waist and open fire...
My wife and I are found dead on our doorstep by our neighbours that evening.

What do you think would happen to you if you stopped paying your taxes? What would happen if you didn't pay a parking ticket? What would happen if you defended yourself and your loved ones against the thugs in blue, who have no right invading your property?
Death is the only ultimate penalty non-anarchists know. And the State is more than happy to dish it out everyday, before our very eyes.

Sunday, 1 January 2012

2011 was the year that our politicians spent flaying the businessmen of this world in a truly Atlas Shrugged manner. They haven't, of course, done any real harm to all their cronies - the heads of corporations, bank CEO's, and other fascistic parasites who fund the political campaigns. The political action came down against the little guy. Taxes were raised, regulations were tightened, new cartels were created, industries were shamelessly nationalized. We all suffered from the increase and prices which resulted from these policies and from a high inflation tax. But I already sense a change in the wind for 2012. The new politically chic word is AUSTERITY. For the last few years it looked as if our thieving overlords were going to recklessly throw us down into hyperinflation. We have been on this road for quite a while. In 2012, however, there will be a change. Politicians would rather preserve the currency they have established (even in its weak and devalued form). Therefore I think they will begin all kinds of shenanigans in order to fix the system once again. They look likely to put interest rates up in order to preserve the currency. Any interest rate hike will, of course, automatically mean bankruptcy and default for most banks as well as most governments themselves. This is where the shenanigans will come in. I suspect the politicians will introduce some kind of measure which will prevent people collecting money owed them by governments and corporations. They will give some kind of ridiculously long term loans and perhaps 'freeze' debts of some banks so that bank runs are impossible and people cannot collect what is owed them. We have know for a long time that European and American governments are already in default - it is impossible for them to pay their national debts in uninflated money.
The other side of the coin will be a change in attitude. So far since the crisis hit in 2008 we have heard a lot about 'social responsibility' and everyone sharing equally in the suffering of the nation. This rhetoric was used to bully the free capitalists (not to be confused with government cronies like corporations and banks). Now in 2012 I think we will hear a lot more about the little man, the average Joe. The politicians will talk about the virtues of self-sufficiency and self-reliance. With this I suspect we will see cuts in benefits and welfare and well as additional tax hikes for middle and working classes. The state will thusly try to highjack the rhetoric used by anarchists and libertarians. This can be very dangerous because many who flocked to our cause may not leave, seeing as the politicians will now be chanting out slogans.
An important part of this process has already begun. We see that the image of the capitalist is being restored somewhat in the culture and media. Whereas the last few years were all about bashing innocent people who happened to make money, now we see the beginnings of hero-worship mysticism in the private sector. The most prominent example is Steve Jobs. The man is a modern day robber baron (this is what the left would call him). He is our contemporary John D. Rockefeller, our real life Hank Rierden. And yet the public and media seem to favour him. Another sign can be seen in movies. Lately a lot more films have included villains who came straight from the government and its bureaucracy. The upcoming film Iron Lady about Margaret Thatcher (the greatest woman of the 20th Century) seems to be an effort by the leftist-dominated movie industry to portray the Prime Minister as a woman, and not a bloodthirsty exploiter, as most people nowadays seem to characterize her.
So, as always, I advise constant vigilance. There is going to be a lot of new newspeak coming on in 2012. There is going to be more and more exploitation. Let's not get caught up in any possible positive aspects of the change, but keep on fighting the statists by any means possible.

Saturday, 31 December 2011

MMXI was another sad year of worldwide depression. The politicians have constantly lied their way into our wallets over and over and over again. By now I can confidently say there is no way back from this. We aren't standing on top of a cliff, we have already fallen off - now it's just the case of who has the best parachute. This is why this depression has hit people who are dependent on others hardest. Personally, as a student, I am still dependent on my parents. So I am an extra weight for their parachutes to carry. Most of my peers and people in my age groups are in the same exact situation. Food and commodity prices have gone up drastically in the past year, and parasticial entities like the Polish government have already promised their slaves more taxes and higher prices for 2012.
As is tradition for The Young Monarchist, tomorrow I will come out with a discussion of the expected situation in 2012, which I actually expect to change quite a bit. For now, as a rather downcast conclusion to 2011, all we can do is turn once more to the wisdom of those before us.

J.R.R. Tolkien's Gandalf gives us hope. People sometimes despair, but that is only because we have that safe Hobbit instinct inside of us.'I wish it need not have happened in my time,' said Frodo.
'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'
We must do what we can and try to continue on hoping for some light in the tunnel, however dim or brief it might be at first.

Tuesday, 20 December 2011

J.R.R. Tolkien, the greatest anarchist author of the 20th Century, understood the nature of Evil in the realm of human conduct very well. I am, in fact, working on a series of essays describing Tolkien's take on Good and Evil. I have started more work in this area because clearly some of his conclusions are very obvious, and yet people do not understand them even after reading The Lord of the Rings (let alone any of his other great works). Professor Tolkien's masterpiece is not some analogy to the real world (World Wars, the Cold War, or whatever) as many Tolkien-fans would like to believe. The Lord of the Rings delves much deeper into the human psyche than just merely describing external events. Let's ask one simple question: Why does Frodo aim to destroy the Ring, if it is obvious that in the hands of Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman, or even Denethor the Ring could be used to utterly defeat The Dark Lord Sauron? The answer is obvious: Because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Furthermore, multiple heroes (most notably Galadriel) tell Frodo that anyone willing to use the Ring is implicitly already corrupted by its power, and any use of the Ring will make an individual more corrupted. In the end, anyone who uses the Ring, whether for good or for ill, will become "The Dark Lord". And the One Ring is a symbol of violence and aggression as a means to achieving one's ends. Once any man accepts the maxim that 'the ends justify the means', he has already crossed that line, and can be said to be a slave of the Ring.
And so it is here on Earth. Any time we choose to use violence to fulfil our wants or needs, we have taken up the Ring. And every single time such an act occurs, we become more and more accustomed to it, until it becomes a necessity to use violence in order to achieve our ends. Institutions like the State are only illustrations of how much we are addicted to aggressive power as individuals in our society. People aren't able to use their own good will and ingenuity to get what they want. Slowly but surely, most 'citizens' become grovelling slaves at the feet of Evil. Why did the Orcs follow Sauron? It was for two reasons: they feared him, and they enjoyed what he could do for them (that is, pillage and steal the wealth of others). How is that any different from your average taxpayer or welfare recipient?!

The greatest role model in The Lord of the Rings is the quiet Ranger of Gondor, Faramir. It is through his lips that Tolkien says about the Ring, the symbol of power and violence: "I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory."
I wonder if any modern fan of the State, warfare, or taxation ever read this book...

Monday, 19 December 2011

I recently decided to watch the original Star Trek: The Motion Picture again. As a big fan of sci-fi and the future, I have always enjoyed Star Trek. What really amazes me about this show and many other modern sci-fi TV, is that in its portrayal of the future it totally ignores any potential change in the human mind and therefore in human conduct. What is even more amazing is that this was not actually true of the original Star Trek series. It aired in the 1960, a time of deep social strife when segregation of government-enforced racism were still the norm. And what we saw among the multi-racial crew of the original Starship Enterprise was the total absence of any racial discrimination. The message was clear: In the future such irrational discrmination will not exist. But with later series this character of Star Trek largely disappeared. We saw regular modern people using amazing futuristic technology, but they were still just our normal average Joes. They thought and behaved like we would think of behave in the modern world. In the movie Doctor McCoy makes references to spanking children - something I think will be universally recognized as a type of child abuse within the next few decades. Furthermore, it is easily inferred from the conclusion of the movie that human emotions are something that surpasses and improves on logic. There seems to be a fully accepted premise that the universe can be grasped better using some other sixth sense which has nothing to do with reason and empiricism. In face, Earth is saved by the very existence of human emotions, when the gigantic alien computer which was going to destroy Earth fuses with a human and evolves to become some higher being.
And this is, of course, another symptom of the age-old "fear of machines", which science fiction has been using as an apocalyptic vision scarcely less often than the "fear of alien invasion". Both of these scenarios are highly unrealistic and logically problematic. But let's look at the very nature of man versus machine. People seem to think that machines are some cold and evil things (because they have no emotions and no 'moral standards') which rely purely on mathematics and logic - i.e. a supercomputer is the perfect Benthamite utilitarian. This is not the case, however. Machines are actually made in our image. Human beings use logic and empiricism to get by in their everyday life. All other superstitions are 'emotions' are either reactions to logic and empiricism, or they are ways to explain something that logic cannot yet explain. Machines are kind of like children - they don't create strange explanations to problems they can't solve, they simply ignore those problems as unsolvable. Our computers are not some seperate sort of creation, their programming is based on observations about the real world and it reflects our own brain activity.

All discussions of futuristic scenarions in modern discourse and popular culture are woefully ignorant of the concept of Social Darwinism - the fact that our ideas and knowledge (and therefore conduct) continually evolve towards their best adaptation to our universe. The most powerful aspect of human evolution is the continual shift in our morality and code of conduct. As Herbert Spencer put it: "Evil perpetually tends to disappear." And why is that? Simply because, as common sense dictates and as Spencer rightly observed, "all evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions."